Obama gives UN control of internet?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I just got an email from GOA that says Obama intends to give control of the internet to the UN

    So why is this in Legislation of the Second Amendment.

    here is the email.



    Obama moves to Transfer Effective Control of the Internet to the United Nations

    Click on the Take Action button to email your congressmen: Rep. Peter Visclosky (D), Sen. Dan Coats (R) and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D). Tell them to tack language onto the continuing resolution prohibiting Obama from effectively turning control of the Internet over to the UN.


    Not a GOA member yet? You can join Gun Owners of America today for only $20!

    If Obama Gets His Way, Efforts to Snuff out Pro-gun Internet Speech Could be Expected
    Dear Tom:
    Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he is endlessly clever and aggressive in pursuing his political agenda, particularly the elimination of the private ownership of guns.
    So we have been watching, with increased concern, Obama’s plan to give up U.S. stewardship over the Internet at the end of the fiscal year -- on September 30.
    At stake in the internet controversy is responsibility for an organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This corporation oversees internet domain names -- who gets them and what they consist of.
    890dgJx0GMUHFDo9vPQaT0MZDgVSgOVfllFA5q2OBz8WSB8s9OvO7lGaZcsNj_39GHGmThWGBdXXG01snkbU8m4hJsZmhHxB-_s2HxbhBrtXgFop5G7GQD-d=s0-d-e1-ft

    After September 30, if the UN assumed effective control over ICANN, it could use its position to ban pro-gun speech on the Internet.
    (Already, the UN is pushing massive gun bans and universal gun registration.)
    When the government’s contract with ICANN ends, Obama has promised that the UN would not take over its role. But, like virtually everything else coming out of Obama’s mouth, that is a lie.
    According to the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz, ICANN would lose its antitrust exemption once its contract with the U.S. ended. (This is also a huge concern amongst Senate Republicans like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others.) If this happened, an antitrust lawsuit could blow ICANN out of existence.
    So to avoid extinction, ICANN would have to affiliate with a “government-like” organization like the United Nations. And this is what it would be expected to do.

    Already, totalitarian regimes are licking their lips at the prospect of using UN control to ban anti-government speech in their countries.

    But there is an easy solution: The upcoming continuing resolution (to fund the government for 2-5 months) should contain language blocking (or withholding funding) from Obama’s efforts to terminate its relationship with ICANN on September 30.
    Congress must act in the next three weeks, or the very freedom of speech on the Internet is in grave peril, particularly pro-gun speech.
    Internet Transfer Imperils Free Speech Online
    On Wednesday, September 14, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) chaired a subcommittee hearing which investigated the potential problems with relinquishing the US’ stewardship of the Internet.
    In his opening statement, Senator Cruz explained the main problems with Obama’s plan to hand over effective control of the Internet:
    Because of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which affords more protection for speech than anywhere else in the world, the United States Government -- as long as it has authority to oversee the infrastructure of the Internet -- has a duty to ensure that no website is denied Internet access on account of the ideas it espouses.... Once the government is out of the picture, First Amendment protections go away. The First Amendment by its term binds the government, it doesn’t bind private individuals. That means that when ICANN escapes from government authority, ICANN escapes from having to worry about the First Amendment, having to worry about protecting your rights or my rights.
    Sen. Cruz has introduced legislation -- along with Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) -- to protect the freedom of the Internet. Not surprisingly, Obama has promised to veto this kind of legislation.
    And that’s why putting a “defunding” amendment in the continuing resolution is the best approach -- given there’s a very low chance that Obama would veto a government spending bill for this issue alone.
    So please email Rep. Peter Visclosky (D), Sen. Dan Coats (R) and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D). Tell them to tack language onto the continuing resolution prohibiting Obama from effectively turning control of the Internet over to the UN.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Hammond
    Legislative Counsel
    Gun Owners of America

    P.S. It is imperative that Congress blocks any potential UN censorship of the Internet. So please email Rep. Peter Visclosky (D), Sen. Dan Coats (R) and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) -- and tell them to tack language onto the continuing resolution prohibiting Obama from effectively turning control of the Internet over to the UN.
     

    HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    I have read other articles about the UN getting control of the internet as well.

    I would like to think that when Obama makes a decision, he choses to do whats best for the USA, But....well...

    I wouldn't doubt it to be true.
     

    Sylvain

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 30, 2010
    77,313
    113
    Normandy
    lol I think the UN has better things to do that "take control of the internet", not that Obama has control over it to begin with ... so I'm not sure how he could give it to the UN.
     

    TangoSierraEcho

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 22, 2016
    109
    18
    Monroe County

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    My experience with GOA was not good. It's my opinion they should be working in concert with the NRA but they blasted the NRA in a mailing I got from them. Sorry GOA. Self-serving BS doesn't cut it for me. Just a scare tactic.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 7, 2011
    2,380
    38
    Jeffersonville
    I am pretty sure that is not how DNS servers work... Actually, I am confidently certain that is not how DNS servers work.

    Long explanation shortened, DNS servers translate a URL to a IP address - for example, google.com may get translated to 209.85.232.101 (or one of many other servers).

    That is all DNS does - it resolves a request when your computer asks "what number am I trying to connect to".

    You can consider it an internet phone book of sorts. This hyperbole is like saying "the group of people that manage and maintain phone books is going to change, therefore they will control who you can talk to and censor your conversation".
     

    robbman

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 9, 2016
    58
    6
    Shelby county
    Sorry, your views don't meet our requirement for dns standards. No gun rights, human rights, right wing christian extremist or any website not in compliance with our point of view is allowed. You can have an ip but your registration is no longer valid in our system. Have a nice day.
     

    david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington
    Long explanation shortened, DNS servers translate a URL to a IP address - for example, google.com may get translated to 209.85.232.101 (or one of many other servers).

    That is all DNS does - it resolves a request when your computer asks "what number am I trying to connect to".

    You can consider it an internet phone book of sorts.

    That's part of it. The other part is managing the top-level domains: .net, .gov, .mil, .com, .org, .edu, and .int.

    The last two significant changes managed by ICANN have been the switch from IP4 to IP6 (because we ran out of IP4 DNS numbers), and the creation of country-code domains (.us, .po, .tv, etc.). The last one was significant because ICANN allowed each country to keep the profits of the sale of any domain using their country code. Little countries like Tuvalu made $$$ licensing their .tv code.
     

    david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington
    Sorry, your views don't meet our requirement for dns standards. No gun rights, human rights, right wing christian extremist or any website not in compliance with our point of view is allowed.

    Of course, you realize every Deep Web and Dark Web entity has registered with ICANN, don't you?

    ICANN doesn't monitor content; they just manage the "phone book" to ensure 2 entities don't grab the same number.
     

    robbman

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 9, 2016
    58
    6
    Shelby county
    Of course, you realize every Deep Web and Dark Web entity has registered with ICANN, don't you?

    ICANN doesn't monitor content; they just manage the "phone book" to ensure 2 entities don't grab the same number.

    And you have no problem with China or iran deciding who can have a domain name or even if you are allowed the have one you have already? It's not just numbers but the registered names. The real underground won't go through registered names but ip addresses anyhow, I've been on the net since the late 80's, I'm quite aware of the process and it isn't good to hand control over to someone else expecially when the left thinks it's a good idea...
     

    david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington
    It's not just numbers but the registered names. The real underground won't go through registered names but ip addresses anyhow, I've been on the net since the late 80's, I'm quite aware of the process and it isn't good to hand control over to someone else expecially when the left thinks it's a good idea...

    Apparently you have no grasp of how DNS works.

    ICANN used to use IP4 (that is, a number of the form xxx:xxx:xxx:xxx, where "xxx" could be a value from 0 to 256, so 256^4 possible combinations) but we had to switch to IP6 because we used up all the IP4 numbers. You don't NEED a name to access a site; you could enter an IP4 or IP6 number in the URL field of your browser, but most people rely on names instead of numbers. That why we've had PHONE BOOKS for 100 years.

    A name is registered to a unique DNS number. Now, to continue with the "phone book" analogy, when several "John Smiths" appeared in the phone book, additional info (e.g., addresses) were used to distinguish between them. Not so with ICANN. If someone has registered "robbman.com", no one else gets it. If someone beat you to your own name, you might have to register as "therealrobbman.com", or some such variation. Each variant gets its own unique IP6 DNS number.

    The "real underground" certainly uses a registered name. If I'm selling guns or drugs on the Dark Web, I'll simply register as "david890environmentalcleaningandchinesetakeout.com", a nonsensical name. But I'll let my customers know my DNS number. They put that number into the URL field of their browser and they're at my site.

    For example, I put 192.69.219.11 into the URL field, I get taken directly to "www.therapmanager.com". Now, "therapmanager.com" is easy to remember; 192.69.291.11 is not. That's why we've been using real phone books for so long.

    China or Iran won't be the deciding authority on who can have a domain name. If any single nation tries that, every other nation can simply point to another DNS server outside of China's control that contains a DIFFERENT "phone book" and all is good. China can keep their OWN people in the dark by making everyone in the country use an "approved" DNS, but that doesn't affect what happens outside of China.
     

    robbman

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 9, 2016
    58
    6
    Shelby county
    Apparently you have no grasp of how DNS works.

    ICANN used to use IP4 (that is, a number of the form xxx:xxx:xxx:xxx, where "xxx" could be a value from 0 to 256, so 256^4 possible combinations) but we had to switch to IP6 because we used up all the IP4 numbers. You don't NEED a name to access a site; you could enter an IP4 or IP6 number in the URL field of your browser, but most people rely on names instead of numbers. That why we've had PHONE BOOKS for 100 years.

    A name is registered to a unique DNS number. Now, to continue with the "phone book" analogy, when several "John Smiths" appeared in the phone book, additional info (e.g., addresses) were used to distinguish between them. Not so with ICANN. If someone has registered "robbman.com", no one else gets it. If someone beat you to your own name, you might have to register as "therealrobbman.com", or some such variation. Each variant gets its own unique IP6 DNS number.

    The "real underground" certainly uses a registered name. If I'm selling guns or drugs on the Dark Web, I'll simply register as "david890environmentalcleaningandchinesetakeout.com", a nonsensical name. But I'll let my customers know my DNS number. They put that number into the URL field of their browser and they're at my site.

    For example, I put 192.69.219.11 into the URL field, I get taken directly to "www.therapmanager.com". Now, "therapmanager.com" is easy to remember; 192.69.291.11 is not. That's why we've been using real phone books for so long.

    China or Iran won't be the deciding authority on who can have a domain name. If any single nation tries that, every other nation can simply point to another DNS server outside of China's control that contains a DIFFERENT "phone book" and all is good. China can keep their OWN people in the dark by making everyone in the country use an "approved" DNS, but that doesn't affect what happens outside of China.


    What if they don't allow certain encryption, that's how the dark Web operates without oversight. Having control of names is the whole issue. They could review web pages and decide who they allow. There is no promise they will respect free speach. I've regestered and administered a remote Linux web server but I'm sure that means nothing to you.
     

    david890

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 1, 2014
    1,263
    38
    Bloomington
    What if they don't allow certain encryption, that's how the dark Web operates without oversight.

    WUT???

    So, they - being China or Iran - won't allow encryption over the Dark Web that operates without oversight??? You don't see the obvious contradiction in that sentence?

    Also, are you suggesting that anyone out there can decrypt Internet packets on the fly, determine their content, then send them on their way (or block them)? That's NOT how network packet systems work.

    Finally, how do you suggest China or Iran deal with Tor?
     
    Top Bottom